{"id":220290,"date":"2003-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003"},"modified":"2016-11-11T01:42:22","modified_gmt":"2016-11-10T20:12:22","slug":"the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 03\/11\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.MASILAMANI\n\nCIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.58 OF 1995\n\nThe Regional Director,\nE.S.I.Corporation,\nMadras-34.                      ..              Appellant.\n\n-Vs-\n\nP.Manickam,\nProprietor,\nThirumurugan Engineering\nWorks, Unit 2,\nTiruchy Engineers Industrial\nCo-op., Ancillary Society,\nSIDCO Industrial Estate,\nTiruverumbur, Trichy-14.        ..              Respondent.\n\n        Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Under Section 82 of  the  Employees'  State\nInsurance  Act,  1948,  Central  Act  XXXIV  of  1948) against the order dated\n24.3.1994 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli.\n\n!For appellant:  Mr.Desappan\n\n^For Respondent:  No appearance.\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.K.MISRA,J)<\/p>\n<p>        Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.   In  spite  of<br \/>\nnotice, the respondent has not appeared.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.3.1994<br \/>\npassed by the Principal District Judge, Tirucharapalli, allowing the  petition<br \/>\nfiled   under   Section   75(A)   of   the   Employees&#8217;  State  Insurance  Act<br \/>\n1948,(hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the A  .    The  aforesaid  proceedings  was<br \/>\ninitiated by  the  present  respondent.   There is no dispute that the present<br \/>\nrespondent is the proprietor of Thirumurugan Engineering Works, which  was  an<br \/>\nancillary industry  doing  work  for  BHEL.    In  January  1987,  the present<br \/>\nappellant has passed an order to the effect that the  present  respondent  was<br \/>\nliable   to   pay   a  sum  of  Rs.10,571.50  as  Employees&#8217;  State  Insurance<br \/>\nContribution.  The aforesaid order was challenged by  filing  the  application<br \/>\nunder Section 75(A) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The main contention was to the effect that the persons working in<br \/>\nthe factory being less than 20, the Act was  not  applicable.    It  was  also<br \/>\ncontended that the Corporation had wrongly considered the Casual Employees who<br \/>\nwere  working  under  the Contractor to come to a conclusion that more than 20<br \/>\npersons were employed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The trial Court relying upon  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nreported in  Calcutta  Electric  Supply  Corporation Ltd., v.  Subhash Chandra<br \/>\nBose and others (Vol.80 FJR(S.C) 301) came to the conclusion that the  workmen<br \/>\nwho were employed by the contractor should not have been considered as part of<br \/>\nthe employees of the present respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that<br \/>\nin  view  of  the  definition of the word &#8220;Employee&#8221;, as defined under Section<br \/>\n2(9) of the Act, there is no escape from the  conclusion  that  the  employees<br \/>\nunder  the  Contractor,  who  were working within the premises of the factory,<br \/>\nwere also to be considered as employees of the present respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The relevant portion of Section 2(9) is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;employee&#8221; means any person employed for wages in or in  connection  with  the<br \/>\nwork of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)xxxx\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)  who  is  employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of<br \/>\nthe factory or  establishment  or  under  the  supervision  of  the  principal<br \/>\nemployer  or  his  agent  on  work which is ordinarily part of the work of the<br \/>\nfactory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in  or<br \/>\nincidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment; or\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)  whose  services  are  temporarily  lent or let on hire to the principal<br \/>\nemployer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or  let<br \/>\non hire has entered into a contract of service.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  In the present case, there is no dispute that the persons who were<br \/>\nemployed  under the so called contractor, were employed in connection with the<br \/>\nwork of the factory.  There is no dispute that they have been carrying out the<br \/>\nwork within the premises of the factory.  In such circumstances of the matter,<br \/>\nthere is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  such  employees  under  the<br \/>\ncontractor  are  also to be considered as employees of the present respondent,<br \/>\nas such persons who have been employed within the premises of the factory  are<br \/>\nbelonging to the present respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The trial Court has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt  reported  in  80FJR  (SC)  301 (supra) which was not concerned with the<br \/>\nsimilar case on hand.  There, the question was whether there  was  supervision<br \/>\nover  the  employees  who  had  been  engaged by a contractor, but the present<br \/>\nquestion was not directly raised in the said decision nor it was decided.  The<br \/>\ndecision reported in Regional Director Employees&#8217; State Insurance Corporation,<br \/>\nMadras Vs.  South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd.  (AIR 1986  Supreme  Court  1686)<br \/>\napplies directly  to  the  facts  of  the  present  case.  The trial Court has<br \/>\nerroneously appreciated the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1986<br \/>\nSC 1686 ( supra) which ran counter to the subsequent decision of  the  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt.   As  a  matter of fact both the decisions were on different aspect and<br \/>\nwere not relevant to the facts of the case.  It was erroneous on the  part  of<br \/>\nthe  trial  Court later impliedly overruling the decision of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nreported in AIR 1986 SC 1686 (supra).  Since the  only  ground  on  which  the<br \/>\nTrial  Court  has  held  that  the  employees were less than 20 numbers is not<br \/>\nsustainable, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside  and  the  order<br \/>\ndated 8.1.1987 passed by the present appellant is restored.  Since there is no<br \/>\nappearance, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>gr.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03\/11\/2003 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.MASILAMANI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.58 OF 1995 The Regional Director, E.S.I.Corporation, Madras-34. .. Appellant. -Vs- P.Manickam, Proprietor, Thirumurugan Engineering Works, Unit 2, Tiruchy Engineers [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-10T20:12:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-10T20:12:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":785,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003\",\"name\":\"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-10T20:12:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-10T20:12:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-10T20:12:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003"},"wordCount":785,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003","name":"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-10T20:12:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-director-vs-p-manickam-on-3-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Regional Director vs P.Manickam on 3 November, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220290"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220290\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}